Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
19/01094/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 19/01094/B Applicant : Nordwest Ltd Proposal : Erection of a detached dwelling and associated detached garage Site Address : Stables Rear Of Cooil Avenue Kirk Michael Isle Of Man
Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 05.11.2019 Site Visit : 05.11.2019 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 02.12.2019 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. It is considered that the provisions for access including manoeuvring space and visibility of and for vehicles emerging from the site are so poor as to be detrimental to highway safety and the application is recommended for refusal on this basis, contrary to General Policy 2 h and i.
R 2. The development, by virtue of its height and proximity to the rear boundaries of existing dwellings would adversely affect the living conditions of those in adjacent property, particularly Thie my Chree, contrary to General Policy 2g and k. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Thie my Chree, 1, Cooil Avenue, Valhalla and Range View as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Friendly Acre as it is not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy.
Manx Utilities Authority - as they do not satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). __
==== PAGE 2 ====
19/01094/B Page 2 of 6
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The site is a parcel of land which lies to the rear of three properties which front onto Cooil Avenue - Lyndale (number 1), Yn Thie Ain (2) and Thie my Chree. Range View and Halcyon (5) lie to the east with the rear of Range View abutting the side of the site. The site currently accommodates an existing building which has a footprint of 18.5m by 5.8m and described both as "an outbuilding" and "stables" on the plans. The existing use is given as "land zoned as residential" which is a description of the land use designation and not the existing use which appears to be a building compound with materials - timbers, tiles and blocks laid out on rubber matting, cones and other construction-related equipment. The building abuts the rear boundary of Yn Thie Ain and runs north to south along its length.
1.2 The site is part of a larger area owned by the applicant which stretches to the north including an existing dwelling built relatively recently which takes its access from further down Cooil Avenue, between Halcyon and a new dwelling which isn't shown on the location plan submitted, Cooil Shellagh.
1.3 To the south west of the site are properties which sit facing onto Shore Road, an unmade road at this point - Fenella - which is not shown as such on the location plan and Geay Varrey sit opposite the site and Valhalla, Cliffside and Beachfield Farm beyond to the north west. Other properties - Sunset View and Ocean Vista are also served by this road but do not front onto the site.
1.4 Beachfield Farm house is a two storey property but the remainder of those that front onto Shore Road are single storey, some - Fenella and Geay Varrey - have dormer accommodation and dormer windows.
1.5 Directly alongside the site - Lyndale, Yn Thie Ain and Thie my Chree are all single storey properties without dormers or upper floor windows. Lyndale has a hipped, red tiled roof and the other two are gable ended bungalows with brown, double Roman tiled roofs.
1.6 Cooil Avenue serves twelve dwellings.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the replacement of the existing building with a dwelling. The property will be positioned in a similar location to the existing building, will be a similar length but removed from the boundary by 0.85m. It will be 7.4m wide (1.6m wider) and the eaves will be 0.65m higher and the ridge 3.8m taller. The property would be 4m from the nearest part of Yn Thie Ain. The roof would be pitched at 45 degrees and will contain living accommodation served by first floor windows which look north east and by three rooflights in the north eastern and south western main planes.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site is designated on the Kirk Michael Local Plan of 1994 as Residential.
3.2 The Strategic Plan has superseded this local plan in a number of respects, providing guidance on general standards of development as well as car parking. General Policy 2: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
==== PAGE 3 ====
19/01094/B Page 3 of 6
(k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan."
3.3 The Department has recently issued more detailed guidance on how the impact on the streetscene and on neighbours may be assessed. The Residential Design Guidance of March 2019 with illustrations added in July 2019, provides means of calculating the impact on privacy and overshadowing, including taking a measurement from a point 2m up the nearest elevation which contains windows towards a proposed building and where anything which appears above a line drawn at 25 degrees would be considered to adversely affect the outlook from the existing dwelling. No such calculations have been provided as part of the application.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The site has been the subject of a number of applications as follows:
87/01770/A approval in principle for either one bungalow or two semi-detached bungalows was approved
95/00438/A - approval in principle fo residential development, fields 4089,4293 and 4594 was refused
02/00042/B - two dwellings were refused
05/00014/A approval in principle of 16 plots was refused on review
08/00945/A approval in principle for three dwellings was refused for reasons relating to poor visibility at the entrance onto Cooil Drive.
11/01722/A approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling was refused initially but approved on appeal. The inspector noted that the Highways Division required visibility splays of 2m by 12m which could be achieved to the left but not to the right due to the presence of a boundary fence. This would necessitate the driver of a vehicle emerging from the site to edge out by 0.7m and that this was acceptable in this case as Cooil Avenue is a short, private cul de sac, speeds are low, there are only 12 dwellings served by the road, it is unlikely that pedestrians would be walking on this side of the road and the access already exists and serves a large field which could generate its own level of traffic. He noted that there was no evidence of traffic accidents here in the past. He was also advised by the applicant that he was to use a form of roof construction which would not require large delivery vehicles and that he was willing to repair any damage and pay for future maintenance costs of the upkeep of Cooil Avenue.
12/01204/B - erection of a dwelling (following 11/01722/A) - approved.
18/01070/A proposed the principle of residential development on the larger area edged in blue. This application was withdrawn prior to a decision being taken. 4.2 Whilst not on the site of the current application, planning approval was sought for a new drive at a property in Maughold (17/01043/B) which was opposed by Highway Services who applied the general standards for visibility splays, stating "the relaxation [of the x distance] is therefore unsafe and inappropriate in most circumstances, however on a private road which only provides access to a limited number of properties it may be deemed acceptable". She went on, "The position of the proposed site access is significantly worse than the existing access as it is directly adjacent to the boundary of the neighbouring property, and therefore adequate visibility cannot be provided over the frontage of the adjacent land as it is not within the applicant's ownership. Highway Services could not support the relocation of a site access where visibility, and therefore highway safety, is reduced compared to the current scenario".
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Michael Commissioners seek a deferral on 17th October, 2019 until after their meeting of 13th November, 2019. They later confirm that they have no objection in principle but wish to ensure that the sewerage system can adequately accommodate any new discharges from the proposed
==== PAGE 4 ====
19/01094/B Page 4 of 6
development and they note that the stables already have an existing access so this should not be a problem (21.11.19).
5.2 Highway Services raise no objection (22.10.19). They clarify in correspondence to another party, dated 31.10.19, that as Cooil Avenue is privately owned, the result on the highway network would not be objectionable. They consider that Cooil Avenue is wide enough for vehicles to pass each other and provides access to over 20 dwellings so one more would not result in an increase in impact sufficient to justify a refusal.
5.3 Manx Utilities seek a deferral whilst they investigate the drainage (29.10.19 and 08.11.19).
5.4 The owner of Thie my Chree which abuts the site, objects to the application (06.11.19) on the basis of the inappropriate nature of Cooil Road to accept further traffic and which does not have footpaths, is poorly surfaced and parked vehicles making manoeuvring difficult. They suggest that the proposed access has never been used as such and when this access was widened on the side of Yn Thie Ain, they were not consulted and they believe that the access does not fully belong to the applicant, as part of it belongs with Yn Thie Ain. They consider they will be affected by traffic noise as they have three windows which look out onto the proposed access. They suggest that their hedge obscures any visibility onto Cooil Avenue and the applicant has no control over it. They note that a child minding business is run from Yn Thie Ain and they are concerned about the safety of the children and their own family who visit. They are also concerned about construction traffic which would also use a poor junction of Cooil Avenue and Station Road/Beachfield Farm Lane.
5.5 They also refer to inadequate sewerage with past incidents of raw sewage flowing out of blocked drains and the manhole position shown on the drawings is incorrectly positioned and actually sits within their property. They are concerned about coastal erosion and not that some of the land owned by the applicant falls within the Coastal Erosion Report area.
5.6 They also believe that the property will overlook theirs and create issues of privacy for them as well as loss of light and they would be affected by light pollution from the proposed dwelling. They point out that the existing dwelling which was approved under the 2011 application, remains unoccupied and unfinished internally and note that in the appeal for this property, the applicant had offered to pay his share of future maintenance and was to use small vehicles in the construction of the dwelling. This has not been done. (06.11.19).
5.7 The owners of Friendly Acre which is the eight property along to the north east from the application site, also expresses concern about the suitability of Cooil Avenue to accommodate more vehicles. They also reiterate the points raised above regarding the widening of the access between Yn Thie Ain and Thie my Chree and express concern about the stability of the properties on each side from traffic using the lane. They also reiterate the points about poor visibility at the junction, the lack of upkeep of the road by the applicant, the child care facility, the lack of footpath, drainage, erosion and also suggest that the proposed dwelling is out of keeping by virtue of its height, design (06.11.19).
5.8 The owners of Range View which abuts the site, alongside Thie my Chree, objects to the application on the basis of the size and height of the building and potential for overlooking of their property, the inadequacy of the access and poor drainage. They also refer to the planning history of the site which includes some refusals for development here (07.11.19).
5.9 The owners of Lyndale, 1, Cooil Avenue (07.11.19) object to the application on the grounds that Cooil Avenue is not suitable for additional traffic - construction and that associated with the new dwelling and that sewerage is inadequate. They note that there is a child minding facility at 2, Cooil Avenue.
5.10 The owner of Valhalla objects to the application on the grounds that the style of the property is not suitable for the area and that it will also result in overlooking of adjacent property. He comments on the inadequacy of the roads (28.11.19).
==== PAGE 5 ====
19/01094/B Page 5 of 6
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The existing building is modest and whilst built right up to the rear boundary of Yn Thie Ain, is significantly smaller than what is proposed. Its use appears to be for the storage of builder's materials and is currently used in connection with the larger overall site with access available from the access serving the existing dwelling on the site - between Cooil Shellagh and Halcyon. The proposed dwelling is not intended to be able to use this access as this is not part of the red line area and not therefore part of the site.
6.2 No visibility splays have been shown on the proposed site plan from the entrance of the access lane onto Cooil Avenue. The applicant does not have any control over the land on either side of this access. On site, it is clear that visibility to the north east is completely impaired by the existing boundary hedge of Thie my Chree and that to the south west is partly blocked by an existing tree and fencing within the front of Yn Thie Ain. The main access serving the new dwelling to the rear of Cooil Avenue has no visibility to the sw due to the existing boundary fence of Halcyon, as noted in the previous appeal (see paragraph 4.1).
6.3 In addition, on the site visit, there were vehicles parked on the south eastern side of Cooil Avenue immediately in front of the proposed access which would prevent vehicles exiting from the proposed access onto Cooil Avenue. Cooil Avenue shows signs of wear and tear with various potholes visible, some of which have been filled in and an inconsistent surface finish. On the site visit there were pedestrians, including small children, using Cooil Avenue.
6.4 Whilst there is no objection from Highway Services who suggest that Cooil Avenue serves 20 dwellings rather than 12, on the basis that the access is acceptable and Cooil Avenue is a private road, it is clear that parked vehicles, which cannot be subject to any publicly imposed parking restrictions as the road is private, together with restricted visibility for and of vehicles emerging from the site, will make access to the proposed dwelling very difficult. There is some use of the site at present as some sort of builder's compound but no planning approval is in place for this and whilst land may be used for these purposes where they are associated with an approved development, this is time-restricted and no such provisions remain in place in relation to the approved dwelling on the area edged blue. The detailed approval under which the existing dwelling to the rear of Cooil Avenue was built, indicated that access and the curtilage was restricted to an area which did not include the current application site or access. As such, there can be no comparison of the level of traffic which would result from the proposed dwelling, with any lawful use of this site other than its use as agricultural land/open space. The "large field which could generate its own level of traffic" as noted by the inspector considering 11/01722/A has been significantly reduced by the erection of the new house under that approval and as such the level of traffic the remaining area could generate would be significantly less than that generated by a dwelling. It is clear from the application cited at 4.2 above that Highway Services do sometimes advise on the acceptability of accesses on private roads.
6.5 It is considered that the provisions for access including manoeuvring space and visibility of and for vehicles emerging from the site are so poor as to be detrimental to highway safety and the application is recommended for refusal on this basis, contrary to General Policy 2 h and i.
6.6 The existing building is low and modest and whilst not particularly attractive, has a limited impact on the properties alongside due to its height. What is proposed is significantly larger and higher and it would clearly obstruct the outlook from the rear of Yn Thie Ain using the calculations in the Residential Design Guidance. Whilst no objection has been received from the occupants of this property, planning approval runs with land not owners or occupiers and if a development fails to comply with accepted standards of development (the Residential Design Guidance in this case), the Department should not reduce the standard of living conditions for future residents simply on the basis that current owners consider that the works are acceptable. The property would also be within 20m of the rear garden of Thie my Chree and could result in overlooking and the perception of overlooking of this property.
6.7 The development is therefore considered to adversely affect the living conditions of those in adjacent property, particularly Yn Thie Ain and Thie my Chree, contrary to General Policy 2g and k.
==== PAGE 6 ====
19/01094/B Page 6 of 6
CONCLUSION 7.1 The application is not supported.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date : 03.12.2019
Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal